4 ms·

You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. Marriage has no requirement for reproduction. The argument is also deeply

by Latty 8y ago

You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. Marriage has no requirement for reproduction. The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially, even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
There are all sorts of weird hypothetical marriages you could imagine (and we could grade them on a scale from 0 to 5 Macrons). Human behavior as a matter of fact does not normally work that way.
qubax 8y ago
> You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. It's not wrong. It's based in biology. > Marriage has no requirement for reproduction. In the same way that getting a law degree doesn't have a requirement of getting a job as a lawyer. But generally, you get a law degree to become a lawyer. The reason marriage was created was for family creation. > The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. What? How is that a flaw? Sure it last longer than the pregnancy because the kid is there. > A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially Right. And a man can have two wives and have kids with them in parallel. > even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered. Of course it matters. It's the basis of existence. It's a biological imperative of pretty much every human being. I can't believe you are arguing against that.
- Latty 8y ago
  It can matter, but it doesn't matter universally. Just because some, or even most, people want to reproduce, doesn't mean that has to be everyone's goal or plan. People who can't or don't want to reproduce routinely get married. There is no legal requirement for reproduction, and people don't only get married for that reason. You can't take the root causes for human behaviour and say they apply universally - e.g: humans want to eat more than they need to eat at that moment to stockpile a reserve - this behaviour is no longer relevant in most modern societies. Food is not about just fuelling our bodies today, even if that's the root of the behaviour "based in biology". Human desires and motives are distinct from the evolutionary reasons for them, and pretending they aren't is rejecting reality. Your view is deeply and fundamentally flawed - it doesn't reflect reality as we see it in practice. Data models where you just throw away edge cases is failing to do the job well.

by Latty 8y ago

SamReidHughes 8y ago

There are all sorts of weird hypothetical marriages you could imagine (and we could grade them on a scale from 0 to 5 Macrons). Human behavior as a matter of fact does not normally work that way.

qubax 8y ago

> You are making the (wrong) assumption that relationships are all about reproduction. It's not wrong. It's based in biology. > Marriage has no requirement for reproduction. In the same way that getting a law degree doesn't have a requirement of getting a job as a lawyer. But generally, you get a law degree to become a lawyer. The reason marriage was created was for family creation. > The argument is also deeply flawed because "women can only have one man's baby at a time" ignores the fact that relationships last longer than a pregnancy. What? How is that a flaw? Sure it last longer than the pregnancy because the kid is there. > A woman could have two husbands and have kids with them sequentially Right. And a man can have two wives and have kids with them in parallel. > even in a world where the "having kids" part mattered. Of course it matters. It's the basis of existence. It's a biological imperative of pretty much every human being. I can't believe you are arguing against that.

Latty 8y ago
It can matter, but it doesn't matter universally. Just because some, or even most, people want to reproduce, doesn't mean that has to be everyone's goal or plan. People who can't or don't want to reproduce routinely get married. There is no legal requirement for reproduction, and people don't only get married for that reason. You can't take the root causes for human behaviour and say they apply universally - e.g: humans want to eat more than they need to eat at that moment to stockpile a reserve - this behaviour is no longer relevant in most modern societies. Food is not about just fuelling our bodies today, even if that's the root of the behaviour "based in biology". Human desires and motives are distinct from the evolutionary reasons for them, and pretending they aren't is rejecting reality. Your view is deeply and fundamentally flawed - it doesn't reflect reality as we see it in practice. Data models where you just throw away edge cases is failing to do the job well.